1. Defendant A

A. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

B. The defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and fine 15.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by Defendants A (T) and C as to Defendant A (T)’s imprisonment with labor for an excessive period of ten months, Defendants A (T) and C (hereinafter “instant service contract”) are inappropriate.

(2) The service contract of this case does not constitute a crime of attempted crimes under the Attorney-at-Law Act because it does not constitute a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, but does not constitute a violation of the Act, and the defendant did not have any intention to commit a violation of the Act. (b) Although the defendant was in a situation between the tax accountant office of Q Q with V, the employee did not know "a person who did not know well about the case and want to know well and know about the case," and there was no fact that "a person would return to Q Q as 10 million won," and there was no fact that the defendant added to Q as above.

3) Defendant C (unfair punishment) of the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of community service, 80 hours of collection, five million won of collection) is too unreasonable. B. The Prosecutor 1 of the lower court’s judgment that acquitted Defendant C of the facts charged is consistent with the purport that “Defendant B was a promise to provide meals with the head of the Office of Government Public Prosecutor’s Office, and demanded that the cost be changed to three million won,” from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted Defendant C of this part of the facts charged.